There is a view among many editors and journalists that the Contempt of Court Act is too restrictive. They should be able to publish critical material about people arrested for grave crimes before they go to trial.
So, when dealing with high-profile cases in recent years, the national media have sought to make a nonsense of the law by pushing at the boundaries. The Joanna Yeates murder is the latest example.
Editors routinely explain that there has never been any proof that a trial has been prejudiced, so where's the harm? They would like Britain to be more like the United States, where anything goes.
But the American experience is hardly perfect, as the US media's coverage of the mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona illustrates.
It appears that the federal authorities are planning to move the trial of the alleged gunman to another state precisely because of the prejudicial pre-trial publicity.
One other key problem is that one of the six people who died was John Roll, Arizona's chief federal judge. It has resulted in Arizona judges disqualifying themselves from dealing with the case because of a conflict of interest and/or lack of impartiality.
So a judge based in San Diego, California, has been appointed to hear the case against Jared Lee Loughner, the 22-year-old charged with murdering Roll and five others, and attempting to murder Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
Legal experts believe his lawyers are bound to seek a change of venue, probably to San Diego, to ensure he receives a fair trial.
Calls for changes of venue in the US are rarely granted. But in 1996, a federal judge moved the Oklahoma bombing case to Denver, claiming that the defendants, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, had been "demonised" in the media.
Source: Washington Post
